The American people do not want US troops deployed in the Golan

(Washington, D.C.): According to an exit poll conducted on 8 November 1994 for the Middle East Quarterly, the American public overwhelmingly opposes a deployment of U.S. forces on the disputed Golan Heights between Israel and Syria. They also expect that no decision to undertake such a dangerous deployment would occur without prior congressional approval.

A national sample of 1,000 voters⁽¹⁾ polled by the respected public opinion firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates rejected by a 17.9 to 64.3 percent margin the idea of placing U.S. soldiers on the Golan. An even wider margin believed that President Clinton should be "required…to obtain the approval of Congress before placing American troops on the Golan Heights" — 70 percent in favor of such a requirement compared to only 17.1 percent opposed. (An op.ed. article describing the poll by the Quarterly‘s editor, Daniel Pipes, which appeared in today’s Washington Times is attached.)

These findings bear out the Center for Security Policy’s long-standing view: Placing U.S. personnel where they could be killed by terrorists or combatants in renewed Syrian-Israeli hostilities is not a decision to be taken without informed public debate and formal congressional deliberations. This is particularly true insofar as such a decision would likely have very serious repercussions for the United States, for its most important ally in the Middle East, Israel, and for the strategic relationship between them.

The basic common sense of the American people expressed in their opposition to an American deployment on the Golan has been reinforced by an expert analysis authored for the Center for Security Policy by eleven former senior military and civilian officials — including five four-star general officers, three of whom served as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This analysis, which was released on 24 October 1994 and entitled U.S. Forces on the Golan Heights: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs, concludes:

"A U.S. deployment on the Golan Heights deserves immediate, serious consideration by U.S. policy-makers, legislators and the public. If such consideration is delayed until all the details are set — until after the United States is committed formally as part of an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement — U.S. options will be severely constrained. Critics of the deployment would then be portrayed as ‘enemies of the peace process;’ any effort to change the agreed arrangements would be criticized for risking scuttling of the Syrian-Israeli peace.

"On the other hand, if the subject is now debated and Congress and the executive branch decide to oppose a deployment of U.S. troops on the Golan, Israel and Syria could take this into account in their negotiations and devise alternative security arrangements accordingly. Such a decision would be far less disruptive if made now than if deferred until after a Syrian-Israeli deal is concluded."

The combined effect of the Center’s blue-ribbon study, the mid-term congressional elections and the Middle East Quarterly‘s polling data should be sufficient to ensure that the notion of a U.S. deployment on the Golan Heights does not go forward absent the most rigorous public and congressional scrutiny. In particular, the Clinton Administration’s need to work with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) — the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whose concerns about a Golan deployment are a matter of record — ought to dissuade the Clinton Administration from making any commitments along these lines before the 104th Congress takes office.

– 30 –

1. The poll had a statistical margin of error of 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval.